ibanezfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Navigation between Category/Series/Portal
Hi there, navigation gets quite complicated, this wiki is a real maze: let's say we focus on one specific model, the good old "SA". There we have 3 main pages with different kind of contents: * SA_series * Category:SA_models * Portal:SA_series These 3 pages each have their own goal, the "SA series" is a (not very) detailed article about the whereabouts of this model, the "Category" is a text-only list, and the "Portal" should compliment the Category with every SA illustration instead of plain-text (provided the page was done, which is not the case here, again). I tried to add a few links here and there, just to make know these pages exist and communicate with each other but I am not sure if all this content is useful or not. Maybe we can discuss about it? (when we are done with the thousand of models we are adding days after days). Of course I took the SA as an example but ALL series are concerned --KainTGC (talk) 00:48, May 6, 2016 (UTC) :Yeah, I've been kicking around thoughts of the best way to address this situation myself. From what I can tell, it seems that the wiki's founder envisioned the Portals to be the sort of over-arching navigational structure and was starting to build that out before he wandered off. I think I agree with the general concept, but the issue is that it needs to be built out a lot more to be really useful. There are bits and pieces that point the way to what it eventually could become (e.g. Portal:JEM series and Portal:2012) but there's still a lot of work to be done before we get there. :My current plan (such as it is) is to focus first on getting the recent guitar models (2013–2016) documented. Once we get caught up there, we can refocus on building out the Portals. I think that in the long run once all or most of the portals are in shape, the idea would be to defocus from using Categories as a means to navigate the site and direct users to the Portals instead, e.g. by changing the order of the top navigational structure (starting with removing the "under construction" from the Portals listing) and perhaps even removing the Category navigation from the top nav altogether (or at least de-emphasizing it somehow). However, to change the top nav, I believe we would require admin access (hence the Forum:Wiki adoption request). :Anyway, there's no shortage of work to be done. If anyone else has any input or opinions on how best to tackle the navigation confusion, I'd love to hear your thoughts. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 15:50, May 6, 2016 (UTC) ::Yes adding the 2013~2016 models is the utmost priority. Navigation and structure of the site both need to be revamped entirely (right from the index page -which is not really to my liking, either) :p ::I understand the Category/Portal philosophy the same way, but to be honest, better is to stick with categories only. For example, Category:SA_models shows 41 guitars. Here we can make a nice portal to display them all, just like the JEM Portal you've just shown. But the Category:RG_models is a different story: 433 guitars! Holy sh.. no way we display them all on a single page. So it is safe to say the RG Portal will never exist. I also ask myself if such portals (for guitars series) are that necessary, al the more than your Portal:2012 is REALLY great, and maybe we should focus on Portal:Year only. And make sure these Portal:Year are easily accessible. --KainTGC (talk) 18:13, May 6, 2016 (UTC) :::You're absolutely right that Portal:RG series would be really cumbersome if we were to implement the "table of model images" approach (not to mention that all the models would tend to look the same). Of course if we limit it to the true RG series (and not all the quasi-subseries which could each have their own portals) then it might be manageable. It would still be a bit of a maintenance headache to try to keep it updated with new models. That points to the advantage of categories, which basically manage themselves, but they tend to be just lists of links, which are really not that useful for general site navigation. :::You're right that working on implementing any of this should take a backseat to the ongoing update efforts. It's good, though, to start these discussions where we take a step back and try to architect the site a bit, and to get our thoughts out on the page to elicit comments from other users. Maybe someone will come along who has all the answers. \m/ DeeJayKTalk! 19:21, May 6, 2016 (UTC) ::::Yes, even if we don't work on all the Series/Portals/Categories effectively, it's good to share some views, at least to see what we keep/what we get rid of on the wiki. For example the "Updated in 2012" and "New finish in 2012" categories simply don't exist anymore, it makes things a little (fix: a lot) easier. From minor updates like these to major, troublesome management, it's always good to speak before acting :) --KainTGC (talk) 23:53, May 6, 2016 (UTC)